In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
|
|
- Charlene Hensley
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case , Document 83-1, 09/15/2016, , Page1 of cv Chesapeake Energy Corp. v. Bank of New York MellonTrust Co., N.A. In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit AUGUST TERM 2015 No cv CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION, Plaintiff Appellant, v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., Defendant Appellee. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ARGUED: JUNE 13, 2016 DECIDED: SEPTEMBER 15, 2016 Before: CABRANES, LOHIER, and CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
2 Case , Document 83-1, 09/15/2016, , Page2 of 14 On appeal from a July 17, 2015 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Paul A. Engelmayer, Judge), awarding damages to Noteholders represented by defendant appellee Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as the Indenture Trustee, in the amount of $438,717, The District Court s damages award represented the difference between the At Par Price paid to the Noteholders by plaintiff appellant Chesapeake Energy Corporation for its early redemption of Notes in May 2013 and the Make Whole Price it should have paid for that redemption consistent with the Supplemental Indenture, plus prejudgment interest. Plaintiff principally contends on appeal that the District Court erred by awarding the Noteholders damages in the amount of the difference between the At Par Price and the Make Whole Price. Plaintiff insists that the only reason it exercised its early redemption right was because it had relied on the District Court s declaratory ruling that the price of its redemption would be At Par a ruling that this Court later reversed on appeal after the redemption was complete. Plaintiff therefore argues that, on remand, the District Court should have awarded restitution to the Noteholders, rather than the higher quantum of contract based damages predicated on the Make Whole Price. We disagree. Substantially for the reasons set forth in the District Court s thorough July 10, 2015 opinion, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court. 2
3 Case , Document 83-1, 09/15/2016, , Page3 of 14 PAUL M. SMITH, Jenner & Block LLP, Washington, DC (Richard F. Ziegler, Stephen L. Ascher, Elizabeth A. Edmondson, Jenner & Block LLP, New York, NY, on the brief), for Plaintiff Appellant. ROY T. ENGLERT, JR. (Mark T. Stancil, Jeremy C. Baron, Danielle B. Rosenthal, on the brief), Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant Appellee. PER CURIAM: The principal question presented is whether the District Court correctly determined the measure of compensation due to Noteholders, represented by defendant appellee Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. ( BNY Mellon ), arising from the underpayment to the Noteholders by plaintiff appellant Chesapeake Energy Corporation ( Chesapeake ) in connection with Chesapeake s early redemption of the Notes on May 13, See Chesapeake Energy Corp. v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Tr. Co. (Chesapeake III), No. 13 Civ (PAE), 2015 WL (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2015). We conclude that it did. 3
4 Case , Document 83-1, 09/15/2016, , Page4 of 14 Accordingly, substantially for the reasons set forth in the District Court s thorough July 10, 2015 opinion, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court. BACKGROUND At the outset, we note that a thorough account of the facts and procedural history of the case which are entwined can be found in the past opinions by our Court and the District Court in this case. See Chesapeake Energy Corp. v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Tr. Co. (Chesapeake II), 773 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2014); Chesapeake Energy Corp. v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Tr. Co. (Chesapeake I), 957 F. Supp. 2d 316 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), rev d, Chesapeake II, 773 F.3d at 112; see also Chesapeake III, 2015 WL We therefore assume the readers familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. Nevertheless, we pause to briefly recount the key facts and procedural history necessary to explain our decision to affirm. In February 2012, Chesapeake, a publicly traded oil andnatural gas producer, issued $1.3 billion in senior notes due March 15, 2019, bearing an interest rate of percent (the Notes ). The Notes were governed by a Base Indenture as well as a Supplemental Indenture, the latter of which is especially relevant to this appeal. Indeed, the Supplemental Indenture established two types of early redemption rights, exercisable at Chesapeake s option, that have been central to this case. Section 1.7(b) of the Supplemental Indenture provided in pertinent part that 4
5 Case , Document 83-1, 09/15/2016, , Page5 of 14 At any time from and including November 15, 2012 to and including March 15, 2013 (the Special Early Redemption Period ),... [Chesapeake], at its option, may redeem the Notes... for a price equal to 100% of the principal amount... plus accrued and unpaid interest on the Notes to be redeemed to the date of redemption [the At Par Price ].... [Chesapeake] shall be permitted to exercise its option... so long as it gives the notice of redemption pursuant to Section 3.04 of the Base Indenture during the Special Early Redemption Period. J.A In turn, Section 3.04 of the Base Indenture required that Chesapeake give the notice of redemption at least 30 days but not more than 60 days before the date of redemption. J.A Separately, Section 1.7(c) of the Supplemental Indenture provided in pertinent part that [a]t any time after March 15, 2013 to the Maturity Date, [Chesapeake], at its option, may redeem the Notes... for an amount equal to the Make Whole Price plus accrued and unpaid interest to the date of redemption.... J.A The Make Whole Price was defined to mean the sum of the present value of the principal of the Notes and remaining interest payments. J.A On February 20, 2013, Chesapeake announced that it planned to exercise its right of redemption pursuant to Section 1.7(b) of the 1 J.A. refers to the Joint Appendix. 5
6 Case , Document 83-1, 09/15/2016, , Page6 of 14 Supplemental Indenture for the At Par Price. BNY Mellon notified Chesapeake, however, that, in its view, the notice deadline for a redemption under Section 1.7(b) had already passed. In the view of BNY Mellon, Chesapeake was required to give at least 30 days notice before March 15, 2013 to redeem At Par under Section 1.7(b). BNY Mellon further warned Chesapeake that it might, as indenture trustee, treat a prospective redemption as requiring payment of the Make Whole Price under Section 1.7(c), due to the redemption s tardiness under Section 1.7(b). On March 8, 2013, Chesapeake filed an action against BNY Mellon in the District Court seeking a declaratory judgment on two counts: that (1) its Notice of Redemption attached to its complaint would be timely under Section 1.7(b) to redeem At Par if mailed by March 15, 2013, and would be effective on May 13, 2013; and (2) in the event that the Notice is determined not to be timely, or if the District Court has not ruled by the May 13 redemption date, the Notice shall be deemed null and void (rather than deemed to trigger redemption at the Make Whole Price). Chesapeake issued its Notice of Redemption on March 15, On May 8, 2013, following a bench trial, the District Court ruled that the Notice of Redemption was timely under Section 1.7(b), and the District Court therefore entered judgment in favor of Chesapeake on its first count. See Chesapeake I, 957 F. Supp. 2d at 374. As a result of that decision, the District Court ruled that Chesapeake s second count was moot. Id. BNY Mellon filed a notice of appeal on May 11, Two days later, on May 13, 2013, Chesapeake proceeded with its early redemption, paying the 6
7 Case , Document 83-1, 09/15/2016, , Page7 of 14 Noteholders approximately $1.3 billion pursuant to Section 1.7(b) of the Supplemental Indenture. The completion of this redemption, however, did not conclude this litigation. On November 25, 2014, this Court reversed the District Court s May 8, 2013 judgment in favor of Chesapeake on its first count, holding that Chesapeake s Notice of Redemption was untimely to effect an At Par redemption under Section 1.7(b) of the Supplemental Indenture. See Chesapeake II, 773 F.3d at 117. We remanded the cause to the District Court for consideration of Chesapeake s second count, however, which had requested a declaratory judgment that Chesapeake had not noticed a redemption at the Make Whole Price. See id. The subject of the instant appeal is the District Court s July 10, 2015 decision on remand from this Court. First, the District Court determined that the second count of Chesapeake s complaint remained moot insofar as it sought nullification only of Chesapeake s notice of redemption, but had no bearing on the redemption itself, which had already been completed. 2 See Chesapeake III, 2015 WL , at *5 6. Second, the District Court, after receiving briefing from the parties, awarded the Noteholders contract based damages in the amount of the difference between the At Par Price that Chesapeake had already paid to the Noteholders for the redemption and the Make Whole Price that Chesapeake should have paid, equal 2 Chesapeake does not challenge this ruling on appeal. 7
8 Case , Document 83-1, 09/15/2016, , Page8 of 14 to $379,650,133.21, plus prejudgment interest, for a total of $438,717, Id. at *18. 3 The District Court entered judgment on July 13, 2015, and entered an amended judgment on July 17, This appeal followed. DISCUSSION On appeal, Chesapeake principally contends that the District Court erred by awarding contract based damages calculated based on the difference between the At Par Price and the Make Whole Price and that the District Court should instead have awarded restitution to the Noteholders for Chesapeake s underpayment. Chesapeake argues that federal law is clear that the remedy for actions taken in reliance on a judgment that is later reversed is restitution putting the note holders back in the same economic position they occupied before the redemption, not a claim for breach of contract. Pl. Br. 2; see id. at Chesapeake refers to this principle as the long established doctrine of restitution after reversal. Id. at 3. Chesapeake further argues that, even applying a contract based analysis, the district court should have ended up at 3 The District Court exercised its authority under 28 U.S.C of the Declaratory Judgment Act to grant [f]urther necessary or proper relief based on [its] declaratory judgment... against any adverse party whose rights [had] been determined by such judgment. 28 U.S.C Chesapeake, which had originally filed the action for declaratory judgment, but against whom the relief was granted, does not argue on appeal that the District Court erred in holding that 2202 was the proper procedural mechanism for awarding compensation to the Noteholders. 8
9 Case , Document 83-1, 09/15/2016, , Page9 of 14 the same place because under New York law it was flatly improper to treat the Make Whole Price as the measure of contract damages. Id. at 2; see id. at We disagree in both respects. Substantially for the reasons set forth in the District Court s thorough July 10, 2015 opinion, see generally Chesapeake III, 2015 WL , at *7 17, we conclude that the District Court correctly determined the measure of compensation due to the Noteholders in the circumstances presented. We summarize those reasons as follows. Under New York law, as the District Court explained, an indenture like the one at issue here is a form of contract. See, e.g., Bank of N.Y. Tr. Co. v. Franklin Advisers, Inc., 726 F.3d 269, 276 (2d Cir. 2013); Quadrant Structured Prods., Co. v. Vertin, 23 N.Y.3d 549, 559 (2014). And where a valid and enforceable contract governs the relevant subject matter of the parties dispute, the contract rather than principles of restitution should determine the measure of a party s recovery for events arising from that subject matter. See, e.g., MacDraw, Inc. v. CIT Grp. Equip. Fin., Inc., 157 F.3d 956, 964 (2d Cir. 1998) (observing that, under well settled principles of New York law.... the existence of a valid and enforceable written contract governing a particular subject matter ordinarily precludes recovery in quasi contract... for events arising out of the same subject matter (internal quotation marks omitted)); Clark Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Island R.R. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 382, 389 (1987) ( It is impermissible... to seek damages in an action sounding in quasi contract where the suing party has fully performed on a valid written agreement, the 9
10 Case , Document 83-1, 09/15/2016, , Page10 of 14 existence of which is undisputed, and the scope of which clearly covers the dispute between the parties. ). 4 The cases relied upon by Chesapeake do not hold otherwise. 5 Here, applying New York law, Section 1.7 of the Supplemental Indenture a contract Chesapeake does not contend was invalid or 4 Section 2(2) of the Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment observes that [a] valid contract defines the obligations of the parties as to matters within its scope, displacing to that extent any inquiry into unjust enrichment. Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment 2(2) (Am. Law Inst. 2011). Contract based remedies are superior to restitution, the Restatement explains, because a contract eliminates, or minimizes, the fundamental difficulty of valuation.... [T]he parties own definition of their respective obligations... take[s] precedence over the obligations that the law would impose in the absence of agreement. Restitution is accordingly subordinate to contract as an organizing principle of private relationships, and the terms of an enforceable agreement normally displace any claim of unjust enrichment within their reach. Id. 2, cmt. c. 5 For example, the principal case involving a contract that Chesapeake relies upon is Northwestern Fuel Co. v. Brock, where the Supreme Court upheld an award of restitution to defendants who had paid breach of contract damages to a plaintiff pursuant to a judgment that the trial court had no jurisdiction to enter. 139 U.S. 216 (1891). The Court reasoned that the trial court had the power to undo what it had no authority to do originally, and in which it, therefore, acted erroneously, and to restore, so far as possible, the parties to their former position. Id. at 219. But Brock did not hold that restitution should displace the parties contract rights and obligations. And whereas restitution was necessary in Brock to undo the trial court s erroneous judgment, restitution is unnecessary and inappropriate here, where the Supplemental Indenture determined the price of the redemption. Cf. Restatement (Second) of Contracts 373(2) (Am. Law Inst. 1981) ( The injured party has no right to restitution if he has performed all of his duties under the contract and no performance by the other party remains due other than payment of a definite sum of money for that performance. ). 10
11 Case , Document 83-1, 09/15/2016, , Page11 of 14 unenforceable dictates the Noteholders recovery arising from Chesapeake s underpayment for its May 13, 2013 redemption. Indeed, properly framed, the relevant subject matter of the parties dispute is the measure and amount of compensation Chesapeake should have paid the Noteholders for its early redemption. Section 1.7 governed this subject matter, specifying the price Chesapeake was required to pay the Noteholders for an early redemption, which in turn depended on the date of the redemption. See J.A Whereas Section 1.7(b) s At Par Price applied to redemptions on or before March 15, 2013, Section 1.7(c) s Make Whole Price applied to redemptions after March 15, See id. Because Chesapeake completed its redemption on May 13, 2013, it owed the Noteholders the Make Whole Price for that redemption, pursuant to Section 1.7(c), see id., and it breached the Supplemental Indenture by paying only the At Par Price. The correct damages award, then, was the difference between the At Par Price and the Make Whole Price, plus prejudgment interest. 6 To hold otherwise would frustrate the Noteholders legitimate expectations regarding their rights under the Supplemental Indenture. As the District Court explained, [f]or the Court to fashion what amounts to a new type of redemption, with its pricing terms to be set post hoc by a Court with reference to equitable principles, 6 Although not explicitly contested by the parties on appeal, the District Court s calculation of prejudgment interest correctly used the percent rate applicable to overdue payments under the Base and Supplemental Indentures. See Chesapeake III, 2015 WL , at *18. 11
12 Case , Document 83-1, 09/15/2016, , Page12 of 14 would confound investors valid expectations. Chesapeake III, 2015 WL , at *12. Indeed, [a]n investor could realistically not have anticipated the third scenario in which if Chesapeake missed the deadline for a Special Early Redemption but redeemed in a good faith belief that it had met the deadline Noteholders would receive an early redemption lump sum payout materially smaller than the Make Whole Amount. Id. It follows, therefore, that [t]he interest in respecting investors legitimate expectations... supports a payout keyed to the indenture s treatment of redemptions after March 15, Id. at *13. Chesapeake was similarly on notice at all relevant times that the District Court could require it to pay the Make Whole Price for its May 13, 2013 redemption. Under the terms of the Supplemental Indenture, which we have previously held to be unambiguous and to have a definite and precise meaning, Chesapeake s March 15, 2013 notice calling for a redemption on May 13, 2013 was untimely and ineffective to redeem at the At Par Price. Chesapeake II, 773 F.3d at 117. Moreover, Chesapeake knew that this had been BNY Mellon s litigation position since the outset and had been confronted with the possibility that a holding by this Court that the redemption was untimely to effect a Special Early Redemption could trigger Chesapeake s obligation to pay the Make Whole Price on remand. 7 7 For example, during a March 19, 2013 conference, the District Court asked counsel for Chesapeake what would happen if the District Court ruled that Chesapeake s redemption was timely to effectuate a Special Early Redemption but the ruling was later reversed on appeal. The District Court queried whether the 12
13 Case , Document 83-1, 09/15/2016, , Page13 of 14 Finally, we reject Chesapeake s contention that, even if the District Court properly awarded breach of contract damages, it erred by awarding compensation that allowed the Noteholders to recoup in excess of the value of the Notes before the redemption, which Chesapeake argues is equal to the present value of the lost interest [on the Notes] offset by the lower interest they would have earned from entering into similar transactions on the date of the redemption. Pl. Br. 55. By analogy to bankruptcy cases where borrowers were forced to prepay loans, Chesapeake argues that, under New York law, the relevant inquiry is not whether a contractual provision sets forth an amount to be paid for prepayment on a certain date, but whether the relevant contractual provisions clearly and unambiguously provide that the prepayment premium is payable for an unauthorized prepayment under the relevant circumstances. Id. at 50. But this syllogism relies on a false premise: Chesapeake did not involuntarily exercise its right of redemption. Instead, Chesapeake opted to redeem early, albeit with the anticipation that it would pay only the At Par Price. The cases relied upon by Chesapeake are thus inapposite. only way to make [the Noteholders] whole [would be] to in effect pay them what amounts to the present value... in effect giving [them] the make whole value through the backdoor. J.A Counsel for Chesapeake responded, [C]ertainly I don t think the Court will give the noteholders the make whole value through the backdoor, to which the Court replied, Well, you don t think that. But I m asking you to assume that the Court of Appeals disagrees with a ruling I make in your favor on timeliness and now wants to fashion a remedy. What is that remedy? J.A
14 Case , Document 83-1, 09/15/2016, , Page14 of 14 In sum, we conclude, substantially for the reasons set forth in the District Court s July 10, 2015 opinion, which we have summarized here, that the District Court did not err in awarding the Noteholders the difference between the At Par Price Chesapeake had already paid for its redemption and the Make Whole Price it should have paid, plus prejudgment interest. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the July 17, 2015 judgment of the District Court. 14
15 Case , Document 83-2, 09/15/2016, , Page1 of 1 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY ROBERT A. KATZMANN CHIEF JUDGE Date: September 15, 2016 Docket #: cv Short Title: Chesapeake Energy Corporation v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE CLERK OF COURT DC Docket #: 13-cv-1582 DC Court: SDNY (NEW YORK CITY) DC Judge: Engelmayer BILL OF COSTS INSTRUCTIONS The requirements for filing a bill of costs are set forth in FRAP 39. A form for filing a bill of costs is on the Court's website. The bill of costs must: * be filed within 14 days after the entry of judgment; * be verified; * be served on all adversaries; * not include charges for postage, delivery, service, overtime and the filers edits; * identify the number of copies which comprise the printer's unit; * include the printer's bills, which must state the minimum charge per printer's unit for a page, a cover, foot lines by the line, and an index and table of cases by the page; * state only the number of necessary copies inserted in enclosed form; * state actual costs at rates not higher than those generally charged for printing services in New York, New York; excessive charges are subject to reduction; * be filed via CM/ECF or if counsel is exempted with the original and two copies.
16 Case , Document 83-3, 09/15/2016, , Page1 of 1 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY ROBERT A. KATZMANN CHIEF JUDGE Date: September 15, 2016 Docket #: cv Short Title: Chesapeake Energy Corporation v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE CLERK OF COURT DC Docket #: 13-cv-1582 DC Court: SDNY (NEW YORK CITY) DC Judge: Engelmayer VERIFIED ITEMIZED BILL OF COSTS Counsel for respectfully submits, pursuant to FRAP 39 (c) the within bill of costs and requests the Clerk to prepare an itemized statement of costs taxed against the and in favor of for insertion in the mandate. Docketing Fee Costs of printing appendix (necessary copies ) Costs of printing brief (necessary copies ) Costs of printing reply brief (necessary copies ) (VERIFICATION HERE) Signature
17 Case , Document 83-4, 09/15/2016, , Page1 of 1 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY ROBERT A. KATZMANN CHIEF JUDGE Date: September 15, 2016 Docket #: cv Short Title: Chesapeake Energy Corporation v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE CLERK OF COURT DC Docket #: 13-cv-1582 DC Court: SDNY (NEW YORK CITY) DC Judge: Engelmayer NOTICE OF DECISION The court has issued a decision in the above-entitled case. It is available on the Court's website Judgment was entered on September 15, 2016; and a mandate will later issue in accordance with FRAP 41. If pursuant to FRAP Rule 39 (c) you are required to file an itemized and verified bill of costs you must do so, with proof of service, within 14 days after entry of judgment. The form, with instructions, is also available on Court's website. Inquiries regarding this case may be directed to
Case , Document 122-1, 04/10/2017, , Page1 of 4 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
Case 15-601, Document 122-1, 04/10/2017, 2007555, Page1 of 4 15-601-cv Lary v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., et al. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order
More informationCase , Document 72-1, 05/26/2016, , Page1 of 3 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
Case 16-1004, Document 72-1, 05/26/2016, 1780452, Page1 of 3 16-1004-cv In re Application of Kate O Keeffe UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do
More informationCase , Document 57-1, 03/29/2016, , Page1 of 3 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
Case -, Document -, 0/9/0, 9, Page of - Kuruwa v. Turner Construction Company UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT.
More informationCase , Document 133-1, 04/09/2018, , Page1 of 3 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
Case -00, Document -, 0/0/0, 0, Page of -00(L) Franco v. Allied Interstate LLC UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
Case 16-241, Document 133-1, 12/22/2016, 1933764, Page1 of 6 16-241-cv Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. My Other Bag, Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
Case: - Document: - Page: 0/0/0 --cv(l) Gutman v. Klein UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
Case: - Document: - Page: /0/0 0 --cv In re Grand Jury Proceedings UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
Case 14-3189, Document 78-1, 06/04/2015, 1524459, Page1 of 4 14-3189-cv Dutrow v. New York State Gaming Commission UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
Case 18-1586, Document 82-1, 07/20/2018, 2349199, Page1 of 6 18-1586-cv Upstate Jobs Party v. Kosinski UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT
More informationCase: Document: Page: 1 12/15/ SUMMARY ORDER
Case: 10-4341 Document: 234-1 Page: 1 12/15/2010 167412 4 10-4341-cv In re: Chevron Corp. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do not have precedential
More informationSecond Circuit Overturns District Court in Chesapeake Make-Whole Litigation
CLIENT MEMORANDUM Second Circuit Overturns District Court in Chesapeake Make-Whole Litigation December 1, 2014 AUTHORS Matthew A. Feldman Jennifer J. Hardy Gabriel Brunswick On November 25, 2014, a panel
More information1a APPENDIX A John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Kirtsaeng UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
1a APPENDIX A 14-344 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Kirtsaeng UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary
More informationCase , Document 75-1, 12/18/2017, , Page1 of 6 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
Case 17-1522, Document 75-1, 12/18/2017, 2196005, Page1 of 6 17-1522-cv Daniel Coyne v. Amgen, Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
13-3880-cv Haskin v. United States UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR
More informationIn the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit
Case -0, Document -, 0/0/0,, Page of 0 cv(l) Puricelli v. Republic of Argentina 0 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term, 0 Nos. 0 cv(l), 0 cv(con), 0 cv(con), 0 cv(con),
More informationCase , Document 1-1, 04/21/2017, , Page1 of 2
Case 17-1164, Document 1-1, 04/21/2017, 2017071, Page1 of 2 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 ROBERT A. KATZMANN
More informationCase , Document 912, 03/29/2018, , Page1 of 6
Case 17-2992, Document 912, 03/29/2018, 2267585, Page1 of 6 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500
More informationCase: Document: 95-1 Page: 1 02/04/ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
Case: 13-1001 Document: 95-1 Page: 1 02/04/2014 1148782 7 13-1001-cv Gulino v. Board of Education UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE
More informationCase 1:12-cv CM Document 50 Filed 10/26/12 Page 1 of 12
Case 1:12-cv-04873-CM Document 50 Filed 10/26/12 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR TO WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., SUCCESSOR
More informationCase , Document 34-1, 03/18/2016, , Page1 of 1
Case 16-413, Document 34-1, 03/18/2016, 1731407, Page1 of 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
- Marathon et al. v. Paramount UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
14-4520-cv Eastern Savings Bank, FSB v. Thompson UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 2:10-cv-02106-JWL-DJW Document 36 Filed 07/01/10 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS YRC WORLDWIDE INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 10-2106-JWL ) DEUTSCHE
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
-0-cv Charles v. Levitt UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
More informationCase: Document: Page: 1 03/21/ (Argued: November 7, 2012 Decided: March 21, 2013) Plaintiffs-Appellees,
Case: - Document: - Page: 0//0 0 0 0 0 - Parisi v. Goldman, Sachs & Co. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 0 (Argued: November, 0 Decided: March, 0) Docket No. --cv LISA
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 6:16-cv PGB-KRS.
Case: 16-16531 Date Filed: 08/11/2017 Page: 1 of 10 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 16-16531 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 6:16-cv-00445-PGB-KRS
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
13-3062 SEC v. Gupta UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY
More informationPlaintiff-Appellant, 04 Civ (KMW) -against- OPINION AND ORDER. Plaintiff-Appellant John S. Pereira, as Chapter 7 Trustee
In Re: Trace International Holdings, Inc. et al Doc. 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------X In re: TRACE INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY Telephone:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500 Docket Number(s): 15-2956, 15-3122(XAP) Motion for: Set
More informationCase: Document: Page: 1 04/03/ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
Case: - Document: - Page: 0/0/0 --cv Gates v. UnitedHealth Group Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
07-4085-cv Vargas v. Pfizer Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to summary orders filed after January
More informationCase: Document: Page: 1 03/05/ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.
Case: 11-4918 Document: 116-1 Page: 1 03/05/2013 864358 13 11-4918-ag Bechtel v. Admin. Review Bd. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2012 (Submitted: December 7, 2012 Decided:
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, (Submitted:September 23, 2013 Decided: December 8, 2014)
--cv (L) 0 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 0 (Submitted:September, 0 Decided: December, 0) Docket Nos. --cv, --cv -----------------------------------------------------------X
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, Solely in its capacity as Second Indenture Lien Trustee, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. Nos. 602 and 603, 2005 Consolidated CALPINE
More informationSouthside Hospital v. New York State Nurses Association UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
Case 17-990, Document 92-1, 05/09/2018, 2298607, Page1 of 6 17-990 Southside Hospital v. New York State Nurses Association UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 16-1791 Twin City Pipe Trades Service Association, Inc., lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Wenner Quality Services, Inc., a Minnesota
More informationCase , Document 219-1, 01/26/2017, , Page1 of 3
Case 15-1164, Document 219-1, 01/26/2017, 1956024, Page1 of 3 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
15 1879 cv In re Lehman Bros. Sec. & ERISA Litig. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
12-1346-cv U.S. Polo Ass n, Inc. v. PRL USA Holdings, Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
Case 16-1133, Document 132-1, 02/15/2017, 1969130, Page1 of 7 16-1133-cv (L) Leyse v. Lifetime Entm t Servs., LLC UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY
More informationSantander Bank v. Steve HoSang
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-7-2016 Santander Bank v. Steve HoSang Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Skytop Meadow Community : Association, Inc. : : v. : No. 276 C.D. 2017 : Submitted: June 16, 2017 Christopher Paige and Michele : Anna Paige, : Appellants : BEFORE:
More informationCase 1:15-cv JMF Document 9 Filed 08/27/15 Page 1 of 14
Case 1:15-cv-04685-JMF Document 9 Filed 08/27/15 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : IN RE:
More informationCase , Document 56, 02/08/2016, , Page1 of cv In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Case 15-2366, Document 56, 02/08/2016, 1701035, Page1 of 73 15-cv-2366 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF NEW YORK
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
13-1446 Costello v. Flatman, LLC UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER
More informationCase 3:14-cv VAB Document 62 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Case 3:14-cv-01714-VAB Document 62 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 11 PAUL T. EDWARDS, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT v. CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1714 (VAB) NORTH AMERICAN POWER AND GAS,
More informationARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CV-12-1035 CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION, LLC APPELLANT V. THOMAS WHILLOCK AND GAYLA WHILLOCK APPELLEES Opinion Delivered January 22, 2014 APPEAL FROM THE VAN BUREN
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/06/ :10 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/06/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK RIMROCK HIGH INCOME PLUS (MASTER) FUND, LTD. AND RIMROCK LOW VOLATILITY (MASTER) FUND, LTD., Plaintiffs, against AVANTI COMMUNICATIONS GROUP PLC,
More informationCase 1:11-cv WHP Document 100 Filed 09/27/11 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:11-cv-05988-WHP Document 100 Filed 09/27/11 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In the matter of the application of THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON (as Trustee under
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
No. 126 March 21, 2018 811 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON Rich JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FOUR CORNERS ROD AND GUN CLUB, an Oregon non-profit corporation, Defendant-Respondent. Kip
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No.
Case: 15-12066 Date Filed: 11/16/2015 Page: 1 of 12 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-12066 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-01397-SCJ
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS BANK ONE NA, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED May 20, 2008 v No. 277081 Ottawa Circuit Court OTTAWA COUNTY REGISTER OF DEEDS and LC No. 05-053094-CZ CENTURY PARTNERS
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
15-3947-cv Jock et al. v. Sterling Jewelers UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
More information_._..._------_._ _.._... _..._..._}(
Case 1:12-cv-02626-KBF Document 20 Filed 11/05/12 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------.---------------_..._.-..---------------_.}( SDM' DOCUMENT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:05-cv-00725-JMS-LEK Document 32 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII In re: HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC., a Hawaii corporation, Debtor. ROBERT
More informationCase , Document 48-1, 07/16/2015, , Page1 of 1
Case 15-1886, Document 48-1, 07/16/2015, 1555504, Page1 of 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500
More informationNOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 19a0011n.06. No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 19a0011n.06 No. 18-1118 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT KELLY SERVICES, INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellee, DALE DE STENO; JONATHAN PERSICO; NATHAN
More informationCase: Document: 180 Page: 1 07/01/ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, 2012
Case: 12-3200 Document: 180 Page: 1 07/01/2013 979056 5 12-3200-cv Authors Guild Inc., et al. v. Google Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2012 (Argued On: May 8, 2013
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
12-1636-pr Kotler v. Donelli UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
16-3750-cv Ileen Cain v. Atelier Esthetique Inst. of Esthetics, Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
-0 Mazzei v. Money Store UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING WADE E. JENSEN and DONALD D. GOFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Case No. 06 - CV - 273 J vs.
More informationZB, N.A., a National Banking Association, Plaintiff/Appellee,
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE ZB, N.A., a National Banking Association, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. DANIEL J. HOELLER, an individual; and AZAR F. GHAFARI, an individual, Defendants/Appellants.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
16-065-cv Aegean Bunkering (USA) LLC v. M/T AMAZON UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
More informationRULES OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT GOVERNING COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDICIAL OFFICERS UNDER 28 U.S.C. 351 et. seq. Preface to the Rules
RULES OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT GOVERNING COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDICIAL OFFICERS UNDER 28 U.S.C. 351 et. seq. Preface to the Rules Section 351 et. seq. of Title 28 of the United States
More informationCase 3:16-cv GTS Document 14 Filed 09/11/17 Page 1 of 12
Case 3:16-cv-01372-GTS Document 14 Filed 09/11/17 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KEVIN J. KOHOUT; and SUSAN R. KOHOUT, v. Appellants, 3:16-CV-1372 (GTS) NATIONSTAR
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
15-3915 United States v. Lajud-Pena (Diaz) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 6:12-cv DAB. versus. No.
Case: 16-13664 Date Filed: 06/26/2017 Page: 1 of 18 [PUBLISH] KATRINA F. WOOD, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 16-13664 D.C. Docket No. 6:12-cv-00915-DAB versus COMMISSIONER
More informationCase: Document: 484 Page: 1 08/06/
Case: 13-3088 Document: 484 Page: 1 08/06/2014 1288754 9 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500
More informationCase 1:14-cv RMB-SN Document 95 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 11. Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs, Defendants.
Case 1:14-cv-09371-RMB-SN Document 95 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------}(
More informationCase: Document: Page: 1 01/25/ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
Case: 10-3861 Document: 227-1 Page: 1 01/25/2012 506643 6 10-3861-cv Eligio Cedeño v. Castillo UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL
More informationCase 1:10-cr DNH Document 36 Filed 10/25/12 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
Case 1:10-cr-00600-DNH Document 36 Filed 10/25/12 Page 1 of 5 MANDATE 11-3647-cr United States v. Keenan UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, (Argued: January 24, 2018 Decided: June 6, 2018) Docket No.
0 0 0 0 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 0 (Argued: January, 0 Decided: June, 0) Docket No. cv John Wilson, Charles Still, Terrance Stubbs, Plaintiffs Appellants, v. Dynatone
More informationshl Doc 2384 Filed 10/23/17 Entered 10/23/17 10:34:04 Main Document Pg 1 of 8. Debtors. : : : : : : : : : Appellant, Appellee.
11-10372-shl Doc 2384 Filed 10/23/17 Entered 10/23/17 103404 Main Document Pg 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS TAHMOURES SHEKOOHFAR and SIYAVOOSH SHEKOOHFAR, a/k/a SIYAVOOSH SHEKOOFHAR, UNPUBLISHED January 27, 2015 Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants- Appellees, v No. 316702 Wayne Circuit
More informationCase 0:06-cv JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/27/2013 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:06-cv-61337-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/27/2013 Page 1 of 10 KEITH TAYLOR, v. Plaintiff, NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, Defendant. / UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 3:5-cv-00758-LAB-RBB Document 2 Filed 02/06/8 PageID.849 Page of 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 2 3 4 5 TONY NGUYEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA vs. LVNV FUNDING, LLC, et al.,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
13-1628-cv Delollis v. Friedberg UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
No. 13-4479-cv Harper v. Government Employees Insurance Company UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
16-949(L) United States v. Burghardt UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term Argued: March 27, 2007 Decided: July 23, 2008
0--cv Rivkin v. Century Teran Realty LLC 0 0 0 0 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ------------- August Term 00 Argued: March, 00 Decided: July, 00 (Question certified to New York Court
More informationCase 1:13-cv JIC Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2014 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 1:13-cv-21525-JIC Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2014 Page 1 of 9 LESLIE REILLY, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, vs. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
More informationUS Bank NA v. Maury Rosenberg
2018 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-31-2018 US Bank NA v. Maury Rosenberg Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2018
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-60683 Document: 00513486795 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Summary Calendar EDWARDS FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, L.P.; BEHER HOLDINGS TRUST,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
17-1591-cr United States v. Steve Papas UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on
More informationFrank Dombroski v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA
2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-4-2013 Frank Dombroski v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 12-1419
More informationFILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/15/ :41 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/15/2017. Exhibit H
Exhibit H 6-3294-cv Reches v. Morgan Stanley UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
More informationCase 1:14-cv JMF Document 29 Filed 04/20/15 Page 1 of 9. : : Plaintiff, : : Defendants.
Case 114-cv-09839-JMF Document 29 Filed 04/20/15 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X GRANT &
More informationCase: Document: Page: 1 10/11/ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
Case: -0 Document: 0- Page: 0//0 0-0-cv Bakalar v. Vavra UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,694 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. RONALD AARON GOODWIN, Appellant, STEVE HULL, Appellee.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 116,694 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS RONALD AARON GOODWIN, Appellant, v. STEVE HULL, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Sedgwick District Court;
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 18-20026 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 5, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL
More informationCase 1:15-cv JPO Document 28 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 10 : : : : : : Plaintiffs, : Defendant. :
Case 115-cv-10000-JPO Document 28 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------X TRUSTEES FOR THE
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION
Chapman et al v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al Doc. 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION BILL M. CHAPMAN, JR. and ) LISA B. CHAPMAN, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) )
More informationPUBLISH TENTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiffs-Appellees, No
PUBLISH FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit September 19, 2007 Elisabeth A. Shumaker UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT MINER ELECTRIC, INC.; RUSSELL E. MINER, v.
More informationCase 0:14-cv WPD Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/05/2014 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:14-cv-60975-WPD Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/05/2014 Page 1 of 8 WENDY GRAVE and JOSEPH GRAVE, vs. Plaintiffs, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 05- IN THE Supreme Court of the United States Michael L. Bernback, v. Petitioner, Thomas Greco, Individually and as President of Harvey s Lake Amphitheater, Inc. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
More information2:16-cv SJM-RSW Doc # 19 Filed 08/31/17 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 349 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:16-cv-12771-SJM-RSW Doc # 19 Filed 08/31/17 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 349 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEMS, LLC and FCR, LLC, v. Plaintiffs,
More informationThe plaintiff, the Gameologist Group, LLC ( Gameologist or. the plaintiff ), brought this action against the defendants,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK THE GAMEOLOGIST GROUP, LLC, - against - Plaintiff, SCIENTIFIC GAMES INTERNATIONAL, INC., and SCIENTIFIC GAMES CORPORATION, INC., 09 Civ. 6261
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 16-3923 In re: Tri-State Financial, LLC llllllllllllllllllllldebtor ------------------------------ George Allison; Frank Cernik; Phyllis Cernik;
More information